|
Greetings TL!
Just to give a warning: I'm obsessed with categories, and the proper usage of language. It comes with my profession and the ability to only speak one language (inferiority complex?) I know a lot of people simply won't care about what I have to say in this post, but some may. Anyways...
It's extremely annoying to me to read posts about "macro" players or "macro" games. It's even more annoying to hear casters/commentators describe a player with "macro" style. At the same time, you never really hear people describe "micro" players or a "micro" style. This is because the two aren't mutually exclusive, and "macro" players more often than not also have amazing micro (on a pro level anyway, look at SC1).
It's also because the words micromanagement and macromanagement have nothing to do with strategy, they just describe what a player does (clicks, keystrokes) in the game in two loose categories. A macromanagement style would only make sense in the context that you must choose to macro or micro, which is never the case (you always do both, they're basic functions of the game).
Better words to describe style, or player decisions, would be strategy, tactics, and economy, just for an example.
Strategy: The overarching decisions. When to move out, where to position your army, how to use the terrain, when to counterattack, when to engage, where to expand, what units to make, etc.
Tactics: Smaller scale strategy like kiting, saving units with a dropship, force fielding ramps (or an army in half), scouting, etc.
Economy: How much emphasis a player places on gaining income. A player has an economic strategy (how greedy they are), and even economic tactics (microing workers to close mineral patches, maynarding, far-distance mining past saturation, etc.)
I may be pulling hairs here, but its really annoying to hear the same non-descriptive words over and over again to describe different players/styles. It detracts from strategical analysis and discussion to not be able to accurately identify different aspects of the game in proper, meaningful terms. And lastly, it makes it seem that casters/commentators are less intelligent/insightful and don't really do the job they should.
TL;DR Talk about economy, tactics, or strategy instead of micro or macro when appropriate.
There is certainly a usage for micro/macro, but describing style/player decisions isn't it.
EDIT: Not trying to replace Micro/Macro with tactics/strategy, just pointing out they aren't the same. Main purpose was how boring it was to hear Tastless and Kelly commentate.
EDIT: Not a popular argument I see, oh well. I shouldn't have emphasized strategy, tactics, and economy so much, as the majority of posts are just saying they are stand-ins for micro/macro. Not the point of this post at all, but rather to show how the words are different, and should be used in conjunction.
|
I see what you're saying, but you really are pulling hairs here.
When someone talks about macro, we know what they're talking about - they're working on their economy instead of producing units - which really is not related to micro in any way.
I don't think we should pause, explain what we mean by "macro" every time we mean that though
|
the tactics/strategy ur talking about is micro and the economy is macro
|
Tbh, I think you're just re-labelling. Macro = economy and micro = tactics under your categorisation. ('strategic' and 'creative' aren't quite synnonymous, I think.) The fact that the words have strayed slightly from their meaning when describing playstyle is pretty forgivable given we're pretty happy with the definition. You'd have trouble arguing that boxer isn't a micro player, or flash isn't a macro player. (replace with say MKP and idra for SC2) even though obviously the players do both.
Plus, if you describe a player as a 'tactical' player, you run into the same problem - a tactical sc pro is obviously also particularly good at managing and boosting their economy - just as an economic player has excellent tactical play. You don't really solve a problem when the labels are essentially identical.
Just my two cents.
|
if you have less than 10 posts on teamliquid why do you even come here to try and teach people about the terminology? jesus.....
|
Totally disagree, and yes, there are multitudes of players who are considered "micro" players.
|
On February 25 2011 01:17 CherubDown wrote:
When someone talks about macro, we know what they're talking about - they're working on their economy instead of producing units - which really is not related to micro in any way.
Lol, good example of the point I was trying to make. Macro just means working on economy? Why not just say economy ("econ" if its too long)? Macro definitely includes producing units, and micro can be related to economy as well.
|
There are also different ways to categorize things. I'm sure you know this since you are a self-proclaimed category enthusiast. The SC community simply has chosen to categorize players in terms of macro/micro capabilities. They also, however, categorize players by their aggressiveness or lack thereof. Take for instance Bitbybit. He's commonly referred to by casters as an overly aggressive player who all-ins every game. There are more categories than simply their micro/macro capabilities. Those are just commonly referred to.
|
Calgary25974 Posts
Everything you said is true but your conclusions aren't true.
Tactics are part of micro and economy is part of macro. Strategy is part of both. You do hear players called micro players.
|
On February 25 2011 01:20 Toxi78 wrote:
if you have less than 10 posts on teamliquid why do you even come here to try and teach people about the terminology? jesus.....
Those that can't do teach or something? Are most of your posts made up of comments like these?
|
"micro style" isn't really applicable for most situations, but I suppose you could apply it if you really wanted to, to loose strategies like ling/baneling vs ling/baneling in ZvZ, mass marine in TvZ, and mass stalker /w blink in any matchup.
Macro-style is a well-defined type of terminology of a player utilizing the overall strategy of expanding a lot and winning in the later portion of the game after overpowering your enemy economically, I see no problem with this terminology and reason for it to change; the fact that saying "someone has good macro, look at his money," and "he likes to play a macro game," are different is just because macro describes these two different events.
Micro is utilized to execute tactics such as spreading marines, blinking stalkers individually, perfect stutter-step micro, throwing down perfect forcefields, moving your army while in the battle to make the most of the encounter. Again, there isn't anything really wrong with this terminology...
|
Every group/sport/game has terminology that isn't completely correct if you look at it outside the game... everyone who plays knows what is being said.
Are you going to get mad at marvel vs capcom players because when they say "pringles" they're not talking about the food?
|
Basically what I got from your post is that instead of Micro we should say tactics and instead of macro we should say economy... Strategy is separate from both and attached to both at the same time.
|
I think you are taking everything out of context. All the terms are being used in different situations by different casters. Also what is actually mis use of certain terms can be strictly because the context takes away the need to elaborate or polish it up. One thing that you have to keep in mind that as a caster I can only assume you are always on the clock, always scavenging for time etc that you cannot expect it to be the same as when writing something in a relaxed way with the ability to stop and think or even review. Pretty much what I'm getting at is that there are many ways to say things or refer to things and these aren't mutually exclusive at all. Even if they could be considered technically wrong.
|
On February 25 2011 01:23 Chill wrote:
Everything you said is true but your conclusions aren't true.
Tactics are part of micro and economy is part of macro. Strategy is part of both. You do hear players called micro players.
I wasn't trying to imply any of these words were mutually exclusive, just that Micro/Macro is a vehicle and not an end.
|
On February 25 2011 01:20 Toxi78 wrote:
if you have less than 10 posts on teamliquid why do you even come here to try and teach people about the terminology? jesus.....
I didn't know post count meant something substantial, I'll try to post in every thread so people take me more seriously.
OP: I agree it annoys me when people say, "he is macroing up right now" because if your at the gsl level you should be "macroing up" at every literally every single point in the game. Casters say this because there isn't much else to say during these "downtimes" and they don't like to be silent for a long period of time.
|
On February 25 2011 01:32 Leviwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 01:20 Toxi78 wrote:
if you have less than 10 posts on teamliquid why do you even come here to try and teach people about the terminology? jesus..... I didn't know post count meant something substantial, I'll try to post in every thread so people take me more seriously. OP: I agree it annoys me when people say, "he is macroing up right now" because if your at the gsl level you should be "macroing up" at every literally every single point in the game. Casters say this because there isn't much else to say during these "downtimes" and they don't like to be silent for a long period of time.
This! "Macroing up" is so lazy for a commentator...
|
On February 25 2011 01:32 Leviwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2011 01:20 Toxi78 wrote:
if you have less than 10 posts on teamliquid why do you even come here to try and teach people about the terminology? jesus..... I didn't know post count meant something substantial, I'll try to post in every thread so people take me more seriously. OP: I agree it annoys me when people say, "he is macroing up right now" because if your at the gsl level you should be "macroing up" at every literally every single point in the game. Casters say this because there isn't much else to say during these "downtimes" and they don't like to be silent for a long period of time.
Well, no, when they say macroing up they mean he's focusing entirely on getting out as many units as possible instead of teching or harassing.
|
Uh? Whenever Warcraft III players are brought to starcraft II, Casters almost ALWAYS consider them "micro" players, with great "micro" and poor "marco".
|
On February 25 2011 02:10 Stiver wrote:
Uh? Whenever Warcraft III players are brought to starcraft II, Casters almost ALWAYS consider them "micro" players, with great "micro" and poor "marco".
That is because in WC3 micro is emphasized far more than macro is compared to a game like SC
|
Hey I think you made a point, but I assume most viewers wont really care if they say econ or macro, tactics or micro. I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think it'll ever be a big deal.  but im sure it felt good to let that little pet peeve out. gg gl
|
ok so you want me to post what i think ?
if you have a good micro, guess what your strategy/economy management/tactic is going to head towards ? something that involves micro for both players, wether you name it "agressive style" or "micro gameplay" or whatever wont change a damn thing in what they do and what the people understand when they hear this term. namely 1 or 2 base play with a well found timing in which superior micro is going to triumph : just before the enemy has storm, a position in which you can drop and attack, an early all-in, or just producing units that have a higher skill cap to use, for example bio, and more potential (imo) instead of static mech with terran.
then again i could just post about the very core of the original post " and just make you realize that what you name "tactics" (???) is called "microing units" and what you call "economics" is called "macro" (just by how you define those terms) and "strategy" is called "decision making", and if you really listened to streams, you would often listen casters/ invited players emphasazing these 3 aspects of the game.
thanks mister dictionnary, but we already had words for these things.
|
Another reason is because they have been explaining it this way for as long as they have been casting. To change now, would just be confusing for some and possibly make the match they are casting less interesting.
|
Macro and micro are words with specific, widely agreed-upon meanings.
Macro(management) involves producing workers and army units, making buildings, and researching upgrades.
Micro(management) involves control of units and abilities
Macro and micro require different skills, and players have different strengths at and proclivity towards both aspects of play. Players who excel at macro will try to force games into later game situations so that they can gain an advantage via their macro skills. Players that excel at micro will try to force situations where they can gain an advantage through micro play.
Also, macro and micro both require strategy and tactics to execute, so which classification scheme you want to use (strategy/tactics/economy vs macro/micro) depends on how well it applies to the player you're classifying.
So it's totally appropriate to refer to players as micro- or macro-oriented players, because they will rely on strategies and tactics that will take advantage of their strengths. Not everybody fits well into these categories, but there are plenty of people who do so it's a useful way of describing the playstyles of many players.
|
This is Starcraft2 we are talking about here, a video game. Why obsess over the people that play it or the way people commentate it? Nothing in Starcraft is going to be "mutually exclusive" concerning the strategy of a pro SC2 player. Macro and micro woks perfectly fine.. its quite hard to focus on continued producing and creation of structures during intense moments where the position of your army is important. Some players feel they are faster and building an army and getting to a high tech really fast with a strong economy, others feel most confident in their management of all units and may feel most comfortable being the aggressor. Micro/Macro works fine; until people start taking classes and studying proper starcraft 2 terminology there doesnt really need to be any dispute.
If you don't like a commentator don't listen to them.
|
I think you're trying to impose a strict constriction on the definition of those terms for no real good reason. Sure, build orders may not be considered either of those, but some of those words can be used to describe styles of micro/macro, and in general I think it's up to the listener to distinguish between such terms (like someone else said, taking the words out of context changes the meaning)
And complaining about commentators, never seen that before.
|
Slayers_Boxer is a micro player, while iloveoov was a macro player. That doesnt mean that Boxer only 1 bases, or that oov cant micro units. Couldnt think of an example in sc2, as I wanted 2 successful players of the same race to avoid race comparisons (aka Idra is a macro player but being zerg in the current state of sc2 he almost has to be).
This simply means that Boxer's play is centered on strategies that require heavy micro (drops, harrassment, etc..) while oov's play was focused on securing expansions and crushing his opponents by having more production.
|
in my sc days macro meant a different thing. it simply meant control of big groups of units as oposed to single ones.
|
On February 25 2011 04:20 Louuster wrote:
Slayers_Boxer is a micro player, while iloveoov was a macro player. That doesnt mean that Boxer only 1 bases, or that oov cant micro units. Couldnt think of an example in sc2, as I wanted 2 successful players of the same race to avoid race comparisons (aka Idra is a macro player but being zerg in the current state of sc2 he almost has to be).
This simply means that Boxer's play is centered on strategies that require heavy micro (drops, harrassment, etc..) while oov's play was focused on securing expansions and crushing his opponents by having more production.
Jinro vs MarineKing -- both are excellent all-around players, but they have different styles and tend to take the game in different direction. Jinro wins with cost-efficiency and tank positioning, Marineking wins with drop harrass and army splitting.
Jinro is a macro player and Marineking is a micro player, and both become deadlier as the match progresses but for different reasons.
|
I don't know what profession your work in - you allude to something language-based, so I'll assume you are familiar with a colloquialism? Macroing, in sc2 = "concentrating more time building units, buildings, upgrades etc". Strictly speaking, macro(economic) is not the correct term for this, or more specifically, that's not what macroeconomics means. But in the context of SC2, that is how it's used. Of course it doesn't mean you never "micro" any more than saying Michael Jordan was an "offensively-minded" player meant he didn't play defense. He did, and was well recognized for it.
This isn't unique in domains of communication. Language IS mutable (often to my chagrin), and this is one way it's mutated here. I honestly don't know why this bothers so many people, it's not like it's a complete butchery of the term. You know, like when (tons of) people think "sarcasm" means "funny"
|
I disagree on a few points.
First, you say that you never hear of players described as a micro player, and if you pay attention to starcraft, there are plenty of these players. Probably most famous of all is the "micro-monster" fauxer, or MarineKingPrime. He's not known for his macro styling, he's known for his unit control. There are several of these players out there, QXC, Axslav (though I'm very impressed with his decision making as well) or just about any warcraft 3 player, etc.
Next is your assumption that macro and micro have nothing to do with strategy, which is wrong. A players macro is intrinsically linked with his strategy. Far to many people believe strategy is just what a player decides to do. Rather, what strategy really is, is what a player can afford. You can't just arbitrarily say "I'm going for ultras!". A huge part in the strategy of a player going for ultras is economy. You can't support ultras of one or two base (well, not many of them). A player who wants to go ultras is going to be planning out how he can arrange key components to secure the bases he needs with the amount of drones he needs to support ultralisk production.
The same rings true across all races with all strategies. A player going for a rush is arranging the level of economy he wants before cutting worker production to throw allot of units at their opponent. A player who is 4 gating, for example, in the hopes of ending a game early is going to be cutting worker production so he has the exact level of economy he needs to support 4 gateways.
A crucial part of strategy is being able to look at your replays and figure out that I have X amount of gas and Y amount of minerals at this point, I don't need so much gas for awhile, therefore I will pull workers off gas and as a result will get that extra expansion, or those 5 or so extra units for that push. Take players like Best from BW for example. He was amazing at squeaking out all these little economic advantages that resulted in him having like twice as many units as his opponents. He had some of the best macromanagement anyone had seen. Can you really argue that those little economic advantages weren't a crucial part of his strategy?
Take a look at Flash's signature dual armory build.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Flash_Build
Everything is on a razor's edge economically to be able to afford things just in time. Everything was planned out ahead of time so that he could get seige mode just in time to hold early pushes, and Goliaths just in time to hold off shuttle harass. As a result flash has a huge economy and can support this huge timing doom push. His macromechanics are what got him there.
Similarly, you cannot say that micromanagement isn't tied inexorably to some stratagies. Take MarineKingPrimes TvZ. He makes marines. Lots and lots of marines. Now without his superb marine splitting micro, what would happen if he did this? The zerg player would make banelings and win every time. Because of his micromechanics, he can use this strategy. There are several examples through starcraft of this as well. Mutalisk openings, hold lurkers, etc.
All in all, I can see why you think what you do, but I believe the views are just wrong. So many people can't recognize strategy for what it really is, which is one factor that limits people's success in a game like starcraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
